Drones can now be readily outfitted with facial recognition technologies for assassination purposes, as demonstrated by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who believe that the general public and also defense policymakers are insufficiently aware of the risk.
What relevance could this have? Consider that in 9-11, the loss of human resources, leadership and upper management of many top companies in the world, was perhaps of greater medium- or long-term relevance than the lost buildings. (Some types of anti-corporate beliefs might lead to arguing that such a loss was rather more of a gain, but anyways …)
For example, a Nazi outfit with just a few dozen or few hundred of these could initiate a series of revolutionary actions by first taking out (not for pizza) in some 5 or 30 or 60 minutes, some hundreds or thousands of remaining civil society leaders who retain both a competent ability and the willingness to openly speak contrary to the violent and apparently genocidal preferences of such ideologists.
Personally, I’ve encountered much hostility (not as much recently) surrounding attire which involves hoods or other features which block the face, with the apparent charges being that it’s suspicious to make efforts to hide oneself from facial recognition technologies when out in public spaces. Very obviously, there is an active conspiracy to try to convince people that they are rightfully deemed guilty of something if attire decisions would tend to reduce the abilities of facial recognition, in particular from all angles. (For some time, I’d believed part of the Zersetzung-style tortures in this regard were intended to make it easier to perpetrate mental programming with the assistance of stimuli in peripheral vision, which was at least partially true). And, notably, this had been frequently associated with many Nazi-esque presentations which would a) tend to promote attitudes which are generally OK with genocidal possibilities in addition to b) promoting general subservience including via reverse psychology and some variety of brainwashing techniques.)
Which is all to say that a) there is a capacity, b) recent and ongoing actions comprising psychological warfare campaigns are consistent with a potential eventual deployment of said capacity, and c) historically speaking, the record is entirely consistent with a willingness to use such a capacity for the mentioned purpose.
Canada presently enjoys one of the most unregulated environments (among advanced countries) with regard to the use and testing of drone technologies. This does not necessarily need to change. But the technological capacity to enforce a rapid (and ideally extremely temporary) updating of such regulations in the case of a clear and present danger should be assured. Also, retailers of such products should be apprised of the extreme plausibility of such risks (as demonstrated in the above video by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), in order to a) shape their decisions about what to stock on the shelf, and b) so that they will be attuned to make good use of their sixth sense when selling products plausibly outfitted with such capacity).
(In the meantime, the ability to promote paranoias and divisionism via the psychological warfare tactics cited above (and others) are of more relevance and interest than this specific type of risk mentioned above. For example, such tactics could lead to a general absence of people speaking openly and clearly about such concerns, which would tend to reduce the ability of suitable actors to access budgets and permissions for sufficient advance preparations related to such risks.)